RENO, Nev. — A Nevada powerbroker who headed a billion-dollar real estate company and pulled the strings of state politics as a prominent lobbyist for more than a decade was convicted Wednesday of making illegal campaign contributions to U.S. Sen. Harry Reid.

Harvey Whittemore, 59, could face up to 15 years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after a federal jury returned guilty verdicts on three counts tied to nearly $150,000 illegally funneled to Reid's re-election campaign in 2007.

Later in the day, U.S. District Judge Larry Hicks declared a mistrial on a count of lying to the FBI after jurors said they were deadlocked on that charge.

President Barack Obama has nominated Neil Kornze to become director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the agency that oversees about 42 percent of Utah's terrain.

A former senior adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Kornze has been leading the BLM as the agency's principal deputy director since March. Before that, the Nevada native was BLM's acting director of policy and programs for 1Â½ years after joining the agency in January 2011 as a consultant.

Kornze's biography on the Department of Interior website said he was "a key player in the development of the Western Solar Plan and the agency's successful authorization of more than 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy," a goal reached three years ahead of schedule.

The website also said Kornze has experience with transmission siting, conservation policies, tribal consultations on oil and gas issues and renewable and conventional energy development.

Obama's selection of Kornze received considerable praise, although Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said he hoped the BLM leader would be willing to work with the state's congressional delegation on key issues.

"The fact that Mr. Kornze is from the West is a good thing," Hatch said. "I hope he understands the issues Utah faces, from multiple use on public lands to sage grouse management to hydraulic fracturing. There is a confirmation process in the Senate that all nominees must go through. I will bring these and other issues up with him as his confirmation is considered."

Trout Unlimited President and CEO Chris Wood said Kornze has "demonstrated a pragmatic, solutions-oriented approach to public lands challenges" during his tenure in Washington. He cited Kornze's appreciation for the value of conserving public lands so that they can benefit local economies..

The solar plan, Wood noted, "carefully considered the input of anglers and hunters in order to better balance energy development with the conservation of important fish and game habit."

Added Ross Lane of the Denver-based Western Values Project: "Westerners calling for balance between conservation and energy development will find no better advocate than Neil Kornze. Neil's history of reducing conflict on our public lands, as well as his commitment to reducing bureaucratic red tape, are positive steps forward to engaging sportsmen and women, farmers, ranchers, taxpayers and industry in efforts to conserve our heritage."

Because Kornze grew up in Elko, Reid said he understands the critical role public lands play in the economies of Western states.

Kornze worked for Reid from 2003-11, finishing as a senior policy advisory on public-lands issues, including mining, water, outdoor recreation and wildlife. He also has been an international election observer in Macedonia, the Ukraine, and Georgia.

Note the emboldened underlined sections , particularily the one by Trout Unlimited President.
" solutions-oriented approach to public lands challenges"

Quote" By now you’re familiar with the standoff between the federal government, i.e. the Bureau of Land Management, and 67 year-old rancher Cliven Bundy. (If not, check the backstory and my radio interview with him here.) The BLM asserts their power through the expressed desire to protect the endangered desert tortoise, a tortoise so “endangered” that their population can no longer be contained by the refuge constructed for them so the government is closing it and euthanizing over a thousand tortoises. The tortoises, the excuse that BLM has given for violating claims to easements and running all but one lone rancher out of southern Nevada, is doing fine. In fact, the tortoise has lived in harmony with cattle in the Gold Butte, Clark County Nevada for over a hundred years, or as long as Cliven Bundy’s family has lived on the land as ranchers. In fact, the real threat to it is urbanization, not cattle.

A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher. They want his land. The tortoise wasn’t of concern when Harry Reid worked BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore. Whittemore was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Senator Reid. Reid’s former senior adviser is now the head of BLM. Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests. BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.

BLM has also tried to argue that the rules have changed, long after Bundy claims he secured rights and paid his dues to Clark County, Nevada. BLM says they supersede whatever agreement Bundy had prior; they demanded that he reduce his living, his thousand-some-odd head of cattle down to a tiny herd of 150. It’s easy for the government to grant itself powers of overreach, but it doesn’t make it right. Many bad things are done in the name of unjust laws. Just look at Obamacare. This heavy-handed tactic has run the other ranchers from the area and now Bundy is the last one. He’s the last one because he stood up to the federal government.

So why does BLM want to run Bundy off this land and is Reid connected?

I discussed this on “Kelly File” tonight, video via Jim Hoft.

*UPDATE: Those who say Bundy is a “deadbeat” are making inaccurate claims. Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. The BLM arrived much later, changed the details of the setup without consulting with Bundy — or any other rancher — and then began systematically driving out cattle and ranchers. Bundy refused to pay BLM, especially after they demanded he reduce his heard’s head count down to a level that would not sustain his ranch. Bundy OWNS the water and forage rights to this land. He paid for these rights. He built fences, established water ways, and constructed roads with his own money, with the approval of Nevada and BLM. When BLM started using his fees to run him off the land and harassing him, he ceased paying. So should BLM reimburse him for managing the land and for the confiscation of his water and forage rights?

Cliven Bundy’s problem isn’t that he didn’t pay — he did — or that his cattle bother tortoises — they don’t — it’s that he’s not a Reid donor.

So is this really about grazing fees and tortoises?

note the mention of the BLM's willingness to allow solar and wind energy developement on these BLM lands.

By now you’re familiar with the standoff between the federal government, i.e. the Bureau of Land Management, and 67 year-old rancher Cliven Bundy. (If not, check the backstory and my radio interview with him here.) The BLM asserts their power through the expressed desire to protect the endangered desert tortoise, a tortoise so “endangered” that their population can no longer be contained by the refuge constructed for them so the government is closing it and euthanizing over a thousand tortoises. The tortoises, the excuse that BLM has given for violating claims to easements and running all but one lone rancher out of southern Nevada, is doing fine. In fact, the tortoise has lived in harmony with cattle in the Gold Butte, Clark County Nevada for over a hundred years, or as long as Cliven Bundy’s family has lived on the land as ranchers. In fact, the real threat to it is urbanization, not cattle.

A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher. They want his land. The tortoise wasn’t of concern when Harry Reid worked BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore. Whittemore was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Senator Reid. Reid’s former senior adviser is now the head of BLM. Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests. BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.

BLM has also tried to argue that the rules have changed, long after Bundy claims he secured rights and paid his dues to Clark County, Nevada. BLM says they supersede whatever agreement Bundy had prior; they demanded that he reduce his living, his thousand-some-odd head of cattle down to a tiny herd of 150. It’s easy for the government to grant itself powers of overreach, but it doesn’t make it right. Many bad things are done in the name of unjust laws. Just look at Obamacare. This heavy-handed tactic has run the other ranchers from the area and now Bundy is the last one. He’s the last one because he stood up to the federal government.

So why does BLM want to run Bundy off this land and is Reid connected?

*UPDATE: Those who say Bundy is a “deadbeat” are making inaccurate claims. Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. The BLM arrived much later, changed the details of the setup without consulting with Bundy — or any other rancher — and then began systematically driving out cattle and ranchers. Bundy refused to pay BLM, especially after they demanded he reduce his heard’s head count down to a level that would not sustain his ranch. Bundy OWNS the water and forage rights to this land. He paid for these rights. He built fences, established water ways, and constructed roads with his own money, with the approval of Nevada and BLM. When BLM started using his fees to run him off the land and harassing him, he ceased paying. So should BLM reimburse him for managing the land and for the confiscation of his water and forage rights?

Cliven Bundy’s problem isn’t that he didn’t pay — he did — or that his cattle bother tortoises — they don’t — it’s that he’s not a Reid donor.

**One last thought: For those conservatives saying that since BLM arrived in the late 90s, it’s the law now, well, so is Obamacare.

Indeed, lets just trust these Federal agencies and the govt that has people like Harry Reid and his cronies calling the shots. It has to be that one lone damn rancher.

This all has to be nothing more than a mere coincidence tied to Harry Reid , developers and the head of the BLM who was his senior advisor and this is all about the tortoise and grazing fees.

By now you’re familiar with the standoff between the federal government, i.e. the Bureau of Land Management, and 67 year-old rancher Cliven Bundy. (If not, check the backstory and my radio interview with him here.) The BLM asserts their power through the expressed desire to protect the endangered desert tortoise, a tortoise so “endangered” that their population can no longer be contained by the refuge constructed for them so the government is closing it and euthanizing over a thousand tortoises. The tortoises, the excuse that BLM has given for violating claims to easements and running all but one lone rancher out of southern Nevada, is doing fine. In fact, the tortoise has lived in harmony with cattle in the Gold Butte, Clark County Nevada for over a hundred years, or as long as Cliven Bundy’s family has lived on the land as ranchers. In fact, the real threat to it is urbanization, not cattle.

A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher. They want his land. The tortoise wasn’t of concern when Harry Reid worked BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore. Whittemore was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Senator Reid. Reid’s former senior adviser is now the head of BLM. Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests. BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.

BLM has also tried to argue that the rules have changed, long after Bundy claims he secured rights and paid his dues to Clark County, Nevada. BLM says they supersede whatever agreement Bundy had prior; they demanded that he reduce his living, his thousand-some-odd head of cattle down to a tiny herd of 150. It’s easy for the government to grant itself powers of overreach, but it doesn’t make it right. Many bad things are done in the name of unjust laws. Just look at Obamacare. This heavy-handed tactic has run the other ranchers from the area and now Bundy is the last one. He’s the last one because he stood up to the federal government.

So why does BLM want to run Bundy off this land and is Reid connected?

By now you’re familiar with the standoff between the federal government, i.e. the Bureau of Land Management, and 67 year-old rancher Cliven Bundy. (If not, check the backstory and my radio interview with him here.) The BLM asserts their power through the expressed desire to protect the endangered desert tortoise, a tortoise so “endangered” that their population can no longer be contained by the refuge constructed for them so the government is closing it and euthanizing over a thousand tortoises. The tortoises, the excuse that BLM has given for violating claims to easements and running all but one lone rancher out of southern Nevada, is doing fine. In fact, the tortoise has lived in harmony with cattle in the Gold Butte, Clark County Nevada for over a hundred years, or as long as Cliven Bundy’s family has lived on the land as ranchers. In fact, the real threat to it is urbanization, not cattle.

A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher. They want his land. The tortoise wasn’t of concern when Harry Reid worked BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore. Whittemore was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Senator Reid. Reid’s former senior adviser is now the head of BLM. Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests. BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area. If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.

BLM has also tried to argue that the rules have changed, long after Bundy claims he secured rights and paid his dues to Clark County, Nevada. BLM says they supersede whatever agreement Bundy had prior; they demanded that he reduce his living, his thousand-some-odd head of cattle down to a tiny herd of 150. It’s easy for the government to grant itself powers of overreach, but it doesn’t make it right. Many bad things are done in the name of unjust laws. Just look at Obamacare. This heavy-handed tactic has run the other ranchers from the area and now Bundy is the last one. He’s the last one because he stood up to the federal government.

So why does BLM want to run Bundy off this land and is Reid connected?

*UPDATE: Those who say Bundy is a “deadbeat” are making inaccurate claims. Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. The BLM arrived much later, changed the details of the setup without consulting with Bundy — or any other rancher — and then began systematically driving out cattle and ranchers. Bundy refused to pay BLM, especially after they demanded he reduce his heard’s head count down to a level that would not sustain his ranch. Bundy OWNS the water and forage rights to this land. He paid for these rights. He built fences, established water ways, and constructed roads with his own money, with the approval of Nevada and BLM. When BLM started using his fees to run him off the land and harassing him, he ceased paying. So should BLM reimburse him for managing the land and for the confiscation of his water and forage rights?

Cliven Bundy’s problem isn’t that he didn’t pay — he did — or that his cattle bother tortoises — they don’t — it’s that he’s not a Reid donor.

**One last thought: For those conservatives saying that since BLM arrived in the late 90s, it’s the law now, well, so is Obamacare.

By now you’re familiar with the standoff between the federal government, i.e. the Bureau of Land Management, and 67 year-old rancher Cliven Bundy. (If not, check the backstory and my radio interview with him here.) The BLM asserts their power through the expressed desire to protect the endangered desert tortoise, a tortoise so “endangered” that their population can no longer be contained by the refuge constructed for them so the government is closing it and euthanizing over a thousand tortoises. The tortoises, the excuse that BLM has given for violating claims to easements and running all but one lone rancher out of southern Nevada, is doing fine. In fact, the tortoise has lived in harmony with cattle in the Gold Butte, Clark County Nevada for over a hundred years, or as long as Cliven Bundy’s family has lived on the land as ranchers. In fact, the real threat to it is urbanization, not cattle.

The guy hasn't paid the unconscionably low grazing rights since 1993. He so much as admits that he owes grazing rights (as he once did) but refuses to pay them to a federal entity... the BLM has attempted for 20 YEARS to resolve this, so to believe this is about Chinese solar panels is laughable at best. The land was NEVER owned by the Bundy's. It has ALWAYS been property of the government. Preemptive rights do not apply in this case, as that clause essentially gave homesteaders first right of refusal to buy federal lands if/when they were ever put up for sale. In this case, the land in question was NEVER put up for sale. Breaking the law for a prolonged period of time doesn't necessarily make it right or just.

Reid may very well be a crook, but don't get fooled into thinking that a+b=c in this case.

I will say that the BLM is doing its finest job at effing the entire situation up and overall is a poorly run government agency (as with... most of them). But to paint Bundy as the ultimate victim here is a stretch at best.

outofrange Said:
I will say that the BLM is doing its finest job at effing the entire situation up and overall is a poorly run government agency (as with... most of them). But to paint Bundy as the ultimate victim here is a stretch at best.

I friend of mine used to work for the BLM. He is probably one of the laziest people I know. Great guy just lazy. Was a terrible farmer and was often the last guy in our neighborhood to get his crop in, harvested etc. Would often leave bales sit in his field until he needed them then would have to push snow to get at them etc. He quit the BLM because he couldn't take the sitting around doing nothing lol. That is all I need to know about that agency.

"The only enemy of guns is rust and politicians."

"The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry."

William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Unarmed helplessness is for sheep and the French." Ted Nugent

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
-Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson

I've been thinking the same thing all along. 1. It's not his land and 2. He hasn't paid rent in 20 years. However, I read an article that said he owed $300,000 in back rent to the BLM. In response the BLM said that figure was as of 2011, now he owes $1,100,000. How the heck did he owe $300,000 for 18 years and then $800,000 for the next 2? The rent increased tenfold from one year to the next? Sounds to me like they are just trying to drive him out.

Also, the article mentions that he's been making improvements to the land, managing water and adding fences. I would be much more convinced of the BLMs rationale if the reason they gave for pushing him out wasn't utter bulls--- (pun intended ha ha ha!)

I'm on the fence with this one...

outofrange Said:

The guy hasn't paid the unconscionably low grazing rights since 1993. He so much as admits that he owes grazing rights (as he once did) but refuses to pay them to a federal entity... the BLM has attempted for 20 YEARS to resolve this, so to believe this is about Chinese solar panels is laughable at best. The land was NEVER owned by the Bundy's. It has ALWAYS been property of the government. Preemptive rights do not apply in this case, as that clause essentially gave homesteaders first right of refusal to buy federal lands if/when they were ever put up for sale. In this case, the land in question was NEVER put up for sale. Breaking the law for a prolonged period of time doesn't necessarily make it right or just.

Reid may very well be a crook, but don't get fooled into thinking that a+b=c in this case.

outofrange Said:
The guy hasn't paid the unconscionably low grazing rights since 1993. He so much as admits that he owes grazing rights (as he once did) but refuses to pay them to a federal entity... the BLM has attempted for 20 YEARS to resolve this, so to believe this is about Chinese solar panels is laughable at best. The land was NEVER owned by the Bundy's. It has ALWAYS been property of the government. Preemptive rights do not apply in this case, as that clause essentially gave homesteaders first right of refusal to buy federal lands if/when they were ever put up for sale. In this case, the land in question was NEVER put up for sale. Breaking the law for a prolonged period of time doesn't necessarily make it right or just.

Reid may very well be a crook, but don't get fooled into thinking that a+b=c in this case.

Is this state or Federal land?

Do you know how that came to be?

Since the change in the management agreement, Mr Bundy HAS attempted to pay the state these grazing fees that the BLM are claiming have never been paid.

Bundy's position seems to be that the state has "preemptive rights" over those lands not him and his family.

There is an argument being made successfully in other states such as neighboring Utah and also Hawaii that this is indeed the case.

To deny the obvious connection between Reid, the head of the BLM and major land developers has nothing to do with what is happening NOW is what is "laughable at best".

walkswithwhispers Said:
I've been thinking the same thing all along. 1. It's not his land and 2. He hasn't paid rent in 20 years. However, I read an article that said he owed $300,000 in back rent to the BLM. In response the BLM said that figure was as of 2011, now he owes $1,100,000. How the heck did he owe $300,000 for 18 years and then $800,000 for the next 2? The rent increased tenfold from one year to the next? Sounds to me like they are just trying to drive him out.

Also, the article mentions that he's been making improvements to the land, managing water and adding fences. I would be much more convinced of the BLMs rationale if the reason they gave for pushing him out wasn't utter bulls--- (pun intended ha ha ha!)

I'm on the fence with this one...

outofrange Said:

The guy hasn't paid the unconscionably low grazing rights since 1993. He so much as admits that he owes grazing rights (as he once did) but refuses to pay them to a federal entity... the BLM has attempted for 20 YEARS to resolve this, so to believe this is about Chinese solar panels is laughable at best. The land was NEVER owned by the Bundy's. It has ALWAYS been property of the government. Preemptive rights do not apply in this case, as that clause essentially gave homesteaders first right of refusal to buy federal lands if/when they were ever put up for sale. In this case, the land in question was NEVER put up for sale. Breaking the law for a prolonged period of time doesn't necessarily make it right or just.

Reid may very well be a crook, but don't get fooled into thinking that a+b=c in this case.

Do a little research into water rights in Nevada and then ask why would the BLM now be destroying water lines and tanks that have been established for decades in this dispute.

Something smells funny here. If BLM had legal rights to that land they would have marched right in and set it up. However, they are staging a "Show of Force" with agents for the alphabet soup brigades and using harassment instead of acting in "Official Capacities". I think the BLM is not legally able to run Bundy out and they know it. The thing that bothers me is this so called "Area of Suspended Constitutional Rights". What's up with that???

The land is Federal Land, do I need to explain who the BLM is to you GST? Land originally ceded to the US by Mexico in 1848 and land that the state of Nevada does not deny is owned by the the federal government and managed (albeit poorly) by the BLM.

Why would he pay the state fees that a) he had previously paid to BLM and b) the state does not want and would not accept?

If you rent land from Carl, but every year you try to give Brian a check that he doesn't accept, does that satisfy the agreement between you and Carl?

outofrange Said:
The land is Federal Land, do I need to explain who the BLM is to you GST? Land originally ceded to the US by Mexico in 1848 and land that the state of Nevada does not deny is owned by the the federal government and managed (albeit poorly) by the BLM.

Why would he pay the state fees that a) he had previously paid to BLM and b) the state does not want and would not accept?

If you rent land from Carl, but every year you try to give Brian a check that he doesn't accept, does that satisfy the agreement between you and Carl?

No need to explain who the BLM is out. Are you aware of what they all "manage" "poorly"?

Mr Bundy apparently very strongly believes in state sovereignty. He apparently believes that attempting to pay the state is a form of protest in what he believe should be the states preemptive rights. The point in which he refused to pay the fees to the Federal got apparently coincides with a change in management that resulted in MR Bundy believing the Fed. govt over stepped the rights he believes should be held by the state in these cases.

How should Mr Bundy protest what he believes is over reach by the Federal govt?

How should citizens respond to what now many thousands believe is an over reach of the Federal govt in this case?

Perhaps centuries ago the tax should have just been paid on the tea in Boston harbor.

Simnply because YOUR veiws are of one nature, does not mean many other peoples do not support Mr Bundys protest over the Federal govt assuming control and ownership of lands held within a state.

Who manged these lands when the Bundy family first moved into this area in the 1800's?

Nevada was established as a state in 1864, roughly about the time the Bundy family moved onto this ranch.

When did the BLM "take over" this "management" and from whom?

Out of range, what do you know about what has happened in Utah and Hawaii in these regards of Federal lands being returned to the states ?

The Hawaii case went all the way to the SCOTUS and was supported in their ruling.

Do you really believe the ties between Sen Reid, a developer charged convicted and then dropped of the charge of illegal contributions to Sen Rieds campaign and the head of the BLM who was Sen Reids former "senior advisor" as well as Reids sons connections to a Chinese company seeking development that requires these disputed lands be used for mitigation free of cattle is merely a "coincidence"??? .

Out of range, can you explain why the BLM is reportedly destroying water systems on these lands?

Can you explain how developers end building on these Federal BLM lands?

Amid the growing standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government, reports are growing that Senate Majority Harry Reid’s little-known ties to a Chinese solar energy giant could be playing a major role in the confrontation.

Reid, D-Nev., and his oldest son, Rory, a former chairman of the Clark County, Nev., County Commission, are both deeply involved in a plan by ENN Energy Group to build a huge solar farm in southern Nevada, according to a Reuters report from August 2012.

Land the Bundy family has been using for cattle ranching is getting in the way of that project, according to documents formerly posted on the Bureau of Land Management’s government website but since removed.

“Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle.”

The federal government’s story so far is that the whole showdown is necessary for the protection of gopher tortoises.

“Reid and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert,” he wrote.

“Reid has been one of the project’s most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada

“His son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission.”

Ah, so all the pieces fall together.

We can assume that Reid cares little about the Desert Tortoise the government itself is killing hundreds of right? Reid is simply using the BLM to change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate his Chinese partnered solar development scheme.

When reached for comment on Wednesday before this bombshell information dropped, Harry Reid spokeswoman Kristen Orthman said: “Senator Reid hopes the trespassing cattle are rounded up safely so the issue can be resolved.” Yes, I bet he does indeed.

What do you think about Harry Reid’s involvement in the Bundy Ranch stand off?

Gst. I'm not going to become your fishingbuddy foil. I have no desire to battle you for the king of the internets and get challenged with 20 questions for every statement. You can frame this case however you like. He failed to pay the grazing fees and now he's being punished.

Keep in mind that his transgressions do not exonerate Reid and make him any less of a crook.

If you believe Bundy is a freedom fighter here to save us from tyranny, you should grab your ar-15 and head to Nevada.

If this story is correct in the ranchers have lost their claims in court and the BLM is enforcing the court orders then the ranchers and their supporters are in the wrong. The rancher they interviewed called the public land "their land" which is where the problem lays. It is not their land..... If he wants to base his claim that it is "their land" by going back to the 1880's for his claim that he has an ownership interest in the public land then why can't the local Indian tribes go back a little further and trump his claim of ownership and kick him off the land?????????

Out of range, ladd, just curious to your answer to a question I posed.

200 plus years ago, should people have simply followed the law that was decreed and paid the tax on the tea in the ships in Boston harbor?

There were people back then that believed what those "rebels" did was against the law and that they should be punished as well.

Out of range, since you seem to believe you are knowledgable regarding the BLM, please tell us about how these lands were managed and who purchased the water rights from whom before the BLM came into existence?

Then if you would please tell us what the BLM was originally created to do and what they actually did in states like Nevada prior to the enviromental groups impacting their "management" thru lawsuit after lawsuit that the tax payers fund. (Coincedentally this change in management happened about the time Mr Bundy decided to pay his pees to the county instead of the Feds. )

Answer why the BLM would be destroying water developments in the disputed areas?

Out of range, are you familiar with the Hawaii case I mentioned?

Have we as citizens of this nation become so bent to the yoke of a more and more controlling govt that we simply accept whatever is placed upon us?

﻿The rancher they interviewed called the public land "their land" which is where the problem lays.

The rancher has been there so long working the land he referred to it as "their land".
I'm sure that he does recognize that he does not own the surface estate. But it is "fee" land. Severed. He has a vested interest. The "use" of that land for grazing and water. Fee refers to the estates in lands, not the land itself.

With a grazing allotment the title becomes split. Much like when someone sells an easement on their property, the title is split and recorded at the deeds office. These grazing allotments also have value. If the owner dies, his heirs have to pay a tax in an estate settlement to the IRS because they view the allotment as real property. The fed/gov can't have it both ways. Either these grazing allotments are property or they are not. Since 1913 the western ranchers have paid billions to the US Treasurey.

The misnomer is in the words "public lands". The correct terminolgy is land that has no liens, holds, easements, fees, rights or permits attached. Most land in the U.S. would not qualify as "public lands."

So if you are a rancher in court and their attorneys use the words "public lands" and you let them do it, then you just lost the case because it means they do not recognize your severed ownership in those lands.

Here's a statement made by the daughter of Cliven Bundy. It will help you get what's going on! At least it should. " Words from Shiree Bundy Cox:I have had people ask me to explain my dad's stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it s in a nut shell. My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use is called pre-emptive rights. Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches. My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these money's against the ranchers.They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with they're own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a penance he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren't doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes. In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well when buying him out didn't work, they used the endangered species card. You've already heard about the desert tortoise. Well that didn't work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years. Now they're desperate. It's come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff. Everything their doing at this point is illegal and totally against the Constitution of the United States of America. Now you may be saying," how sad, but what does this have to do with me?" Well, I'll tell you. They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again. Next, it's Utah's turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.Then there's the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn't paid them, those cattle do belong to him. Regardless where they are they are my father's property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed. Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad's signature on it. They think they can take them over two borders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfield Auction and sell them. All with our tax money. They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars. See how slick they are?Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks"

Bundy Ranch, the Federal Government, and the Nevada Water Tipping Point

Many Americans have been watching with great consternation the ongoing struggle between the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Marshals against Cliven Bundy and his family. There are no signs of either side relinquishing its position. Many onlookers have been informed that this dispute is over protecting the desert tortoise. But it is nothing of the sort. In fact, the reality of the dispute goes far underneath what is being talked about. The more appropriate source of the dispute is ground water as well as surface water –this is a war over water.Cliven Bundy and his family claim that they can trace their family ownership back to around the 1870s on their current property in Clark County. This is well before any federal offices such as the EPA, BLM, or water management were created. This corresponds with the Homestead rights that were established during the Lincoln administration in 1862 to entice people to settle the western frontier and expand the U.S. agricultural enterprises. This 19th-century policy was meant to encourage and support settlement by families like the Bundys. Now, over 150 years later, what seemed to be borderless country surrounding small-town Bunkerville in Nevada is an inhospitable petri dish for the experiments of growing federal regulations.

The Bundy Ranch “VO” is now the last large cattle ranch standing in Clark County. According to an anonymous source who has lived in Nevada for thirty-five years, the other major ranches in Clark County have been driven out of existence for one reason or another by the BLM and the Feds. It is claimed that the BLM are masquerading as conservationists, using their federal power to wield the final blow to reclaim the settlement rights they once honored to settlers like the Bundys.

Follow the Money

The real wealth is in the water to support the plush green golf courses, and surrounding housing developments, gleaming swimming pools, and other demands by hotels and households in Las Vegas, Arizona, and Southern California.

The same anonymous source claims that there has been a pattern of behavior: land in Clark County has been targeted as property that the BLM can use; the BLM makes an offer to buy the property from the owner (prices vary, but it can be a very low market price); the BLM purchases the land; the property is then stripped of the water rights; and the land is resold without the right to water resources. But what good is a farm or ranch without water?

In other words, the BLM is not only driving out the cattle, the cattle rancher, and potentially any wildlife that depends on the riparian environment. The BLM is setting up a situation whereby the surrounding small towns will also go extinct. The BLM’s actions are ensuring that no one will return to the area.

Although Nevada Senator Dean Heller has issued a public statement about his concern over the handling of the Bundy family case, he has not elaborated on the water issue.

The author made several attempts to reach Heller’s communications director regarding the importance of water related to this case, but there was no response from Senator Heller’s office.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has kept his official statement simple over the past few days. Senator Reid “hopes that the transpassing of cattle are rounded up safely so the issue can be resolved.” While it is not clear exactly what “transpassing” means, what is more obvious is that some in the media have overlooked the small detail that the head of the Bureau of Land Management, a division of the Department of Interior, is Neil Kornze, who was also the former senior policy advisor to Senator Reid from 2003 to 2011. Mr. Kornze has served as the BLM principal deputy director for a little over a year, until the U.S. Senate confirmed him as the director of the BLM a few days ago.

On April 8, three days ago, Senator Reid posted the following press release on his website:

I’m pleased that the Senate confirmed Neil Kornze as the Director of the Bureau of Land Management today. Neil is just perfect for this position. Raised in Elko, Nevada, Neil really understands the role of public lands in rural America, and natural resources across the West.

Senator Reid continued:

His expertise is going to be invaluable to the Bureau of Land Management. I have every bit of confidence that Neil Kornze will be the best director we have ever had at BLM and I wish him success in this role.

Furthermore, it might be coincidental that the problems with the Bundy cattle ranching began in 1993, the same year Patricia Mulroy began serving as general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. From 1989, Ms. Mulroy was also the general manager of the Las Vegas Valley Water District. The author attempted to contact Ms. Mulroy for a comment, but she retired from both positions a few months ago in February.

It’s also possible the drought in the western states could have been the catalyst to the desperate actions by the federal authorities surrounding the Bundy cattle operation. Currently, water rights in Nevada run anywhere from $7,000 to $50,000 per acre-foot (depending on the time of year and the amount of rainfall or snowfall in the western region). The water in Nevada is then auctioned, as it has been for at least twenty-five years. That same water can be resold in Las Vegas, Arizona, or Southern California.

Bunkerville in Nevada is ensconced between the Virgin River and the main road, Riverside Road. The Virgin River is a tributary to Lake Mead. The river, along with other sources, discharges into Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the United States. Both the Virgin River and Lake Mead are part of the Colorado River Basin. In fact, Lake Mead is considered the largest surface water collection for the Colorado River. Whoever controls the water controls the vast wealth that is distributed to a network of states at a crucial time during a water shortage.

So why, then, are there rumors of about 5,000 concerned citizens flocking to the aid of a family that seems to have a simple property rights dispute? It appears that it is because it is not just the Bundy Family under threat of threats of regulations –a figurative gun ready to fire at their very existence. Either the citizens of America have long tolerated mounting regulations, or they have not noticed them.

Americans have been surrounded, deliberately corralled, by an increasing code of regulations. Americans have regulations pointed at their health care in the form of ObamaCare, their finances by the mercurial IRS, their communications by the NSA, the future education of young Americans by the newly launched Common Core. When will Americans reach the tipping point? It might all begin in Senator Reid’s home state –the Nevadan Wild West.

So out of range, if this is just about one rancher not paying his grazing fees and not a systematic removal of ranchers from this area, why would BLM officials be destroying water sources and pipelines built on these properties?

If they intended to allow some other rancher that was willing to pay the fees to continue to run cattle on these lands why would they destroy the developed water sources?

What do you know about western water laws and rights?

If a Federal agency that was formed to help you better manage your operation and grazing thru the fees you pay it turns a 180 ad begins to use the fees you pay it to put you out of business would you continue to pay these fees to that Federal agency or would you make a stand to force the govt to return to what that agency was originally supposed to do under the agreement you had with it?

Perhaps people that are willing to learn a little about what has transpired in the last 30 years or so can begin to see and understand why most ranchers do not trust these Federal agencies and oppose giving them any more power than they already have.

Snipers, military vehicles with machine guns and hundreds of armed men to remove one lone rancher. Plus the crooked politicians to give them the go ahead so they can then line their own pockets.

Maybe Homeland Security gave them some of their billions of rounds of ammunition for this " solutions-oriented approach to public lands challenges" Reid claims his former senior advisor now head of the BLM is so good at.

I thought the Boston Tea Party had something to do with taxation without representation because the people had no vote in the House of Commons? These ranchers have representation, and for the 20 years they haven't paid their grazing fees that representation has been both republican and democrat. They have also had their due process of law in court. The question I had when I saw they haven't paid their grazing fees for 20 years is why the BLM allowed the situation to get so far down the road before they seized the cows????

How fair is it to the other area ranchers that have paid their grazing fees to have these guys get away without doing that. Part of those grazing fees are supposed to go back into the range so the neighbors who have been paying their fees are supporting these squatters brag...Rather socialistic don't you think?

The feds have been smart to date in the standoff by trying to avoid violence over this. Let's all be glad about that and hope nobody gets hurt down the road. Liens on the cows which will be paid when they are sold is probably better than forcing a confrontation.....Especially if you have these miltia wanna be hero types coming in to the situation.

Since the citizens had no representation, they felt taxes were unjust. The colonies were on the verge of revolt. And no they shouldn't have paid the taxes. This situation is a little different.... check that quite a bit.

Even when government is corrupt, and more and more controlling, you better play by the rules, or you just give them more ammunition with no leg to stand on in court. It sounds like the guy in the videos you posted won in court, but of course the fight continues. I'm thinking Bundy should have paid his grazing fees, we all pay the gov't monies we feel is wrong.

When I grew up on Oahe, all the boat ramps were free, and you could enter the parks free. The CORPS charged for camping. Tax payers paid for the land, ramps and parks, way back in the 60's. 30 years later, the CORPS started charging to use the ramps. One was so bad there was broken trailer lights all over it, they never fixed it. Now the States were given the land, parks, and ramps above the high water mark, and turned the parks into State Parks, charging daily use fees just to drive in and look around. Now I believe that this is wrong. Should I not pay? We as taxpayers have all ready paid for the land, I believe I shouldn't have to pay to drive down to the river to fish.

Gst have you ever paid any fees, or taxes to the gov't you felt were wrong to avoid the consequences?

If you leased land from someone, and they sold the land to someone else you didn't like, would you pay your lease if they changed the rules on that land.

I think Bundy should have paid up, and fought like the guy did in the videos you posted.

Ladd Said: I thought the Boston Tea Party had something to do with taxation without representation because the people had no vote in the House of Commons? ladd that was only a portion of the reason boxes of tea were dumped into Boston Harbor.The govt at that time had far over reached what the people of this new land decided they would tolerate in many more areas than just "taxation without representation. These ranchers have representation, and for the 20 years they haven't paid their grazing fees that representation has been both republican and democrat. They have also had their due process of law in court. The question I had when I saw they haven't paid their grazing fees for 20 years is why the BLM allowed the situation to get so far down the road before they seized the cows????

ladd did you understand what the grazing fees paid to the BLM were to be originally used for? It was a contract of sorts to "help" these ranchers better mange their cattle on these lands, so if the govt breaks the intent of what these fees were being used for and instead begin using them to prohibt cattle from being on these lands because of lawsuits by groups like what now is the Center for Biological Diversity what would you do if the "representation you had was the likes of Harry Reid who is behind it all to line his own pockets??? Did they actually HAVE "representation" with Sen Harry Reid????

How fair is it to the other area ranchers that have paid their grazing fees to have these guys get away without doing that. Part of those grazing fees are supposed to go back into the range so the neighbors who have been paying their fees are supporting these squatters brag...Rather socialistic don't you think? Ladd, these "fees" were used to remove 52 of the 53 ranchers that were on these lands to begin after the BLM changed their intent of how they "managed" these lands. So indeed ladd, how is it "fair" to them? (Have you read any of the history of what has happened here with the BLM and how things changed from what it was originally designed to do?)

The feds have been smart to date in the standoff by trying to avoid violence over this. Let's all be glad about that and hope nobody gets hurt down the road. Liens on the cows which will be paid when they are sold is probably better than forcing a confrontation.....Especially if you have these miltia wanna be hero types coming in to the situation. So ladd is it right if a state has a law that allows someones cattle to be seized for neglect without someone with "reasonable qualifications as approved by the State Board of Animal Health" (approved vet or State Vet Field inspector) making a determination that neglect had actually occurred prior to the seizure? Should these seizures of private property (cattle) for neglect here in ND be allowed based on nothing more than a "law enforcement officers belief" and sworn affidavit?

Rowdie Said:
Since the citizens had no representation, they felt taxes were unjust. The colonies were on the verge of revolt. And no they shouldn't have paid the taxes. This situation is a little different.... check that quite a bit.

Even when government is corrupt, and more and more controlling, you better play by the rules, or you just give them more ammunition with no leg to stand on in court. If this is our govt, and you are content not to fight against it, we are screwed. Do you honestly believe the Founding Fathers thought the citizenry should not stand against a "corrupt and controling govt"??? It sounds like the guy in the videos you posted won in court, but of course the fight continues. I'm thinking Bundy should have paid his grazing fees, we all pay the gov't monies we feel is wrong.

When I grew up on Oahe, all the boat ramps were free, and you could enter the parks free. The CORPS charged for camping. Tax payers paid for the land, ramps and parks, way back in the 60's. 30 years later, the CORPS started charging to use the ramps. One was so bad there was broken trailer lights all over it, they never fixed it. Now the States were given the land, parks, and ramps above the high water mark, and turned the parks into State Parks, charging daily use fees just to drive in and look around. Now I believe that this is wrong. Should I not pay? We as taxpayers have all ready paid for the land, I believe I shouldn't have to pay to drive down to the river to fish.

The difference here rowdie is the fees you paid were not being used to keep you from fishing and using thelake as they fees the BLM collected from the ranchers were being used to force them off these lands. BIG difference.

Gst have you ever paid any fees, or taxes to the gov't you felt were wrong to avoid the consequences?

Not ones I beleive were knowingly being used to put me out of business.

If you leased land from someone, and they sold the land to someone else you didn't like, would you pay your lease if they changed the rules on that land.

I think Bundy should have paid up, and fought like the guy did in the videos you posted.

Rowdie did you see where his "representation Sen Harry Reid received illegal contributions from a major land developer that was convicted by a jury and then later that day had that conviction overturned by a district judge? Do you beleive the facts that are coming out that show how Reid is a part of forcing these ranchers off these lands thru his former senior advisor now the head of the BLM to use these lands as mitigating lands for those BLM lands sold to developers which Reids son is involved with? How much confidence would that give you that you actually
1. had "representation" as ladd claims
2. could have your day in court
3.would not be worse off by following the rules the BLM changed. (remember he has watched as 52 other ranchers have been forced to leave this area and he is the only one remaining.)

When Kit Laney answered a knock on his door Saturday, law enforcement officers from the U.S. Forest Service handed him a piece of paper announcing his Diamond Bar Ranch in southwest New Mexico would be shut down Wednesday and his 300 head of cattle grazing there would be removed – one way or the other.

Other Forest Service officials were busy nailing similar notices on fence posts along the highway and informing neighbors that after Feb. 11, they should not attempt to enter the Diamond Bar property.

Laney was not surprised. He knew someday there would be an on-the-ground confrontation to enforce a 1997 court ruling which says his cattle are trespassing on federal land. That day has arrived.

Laney insists the land in question belongs to him; the Forest Service says it belongs to the federal government. So far, the federal court is on the side of the Forest Service. But Laney is not willing to throw in the towel and give up the land that has been in his family since long before there was a U.S. Forest Service.

Moreover, in New Mexico, there is a “brand law” that says, essentially, no cattle may be sold or transported out of state without approval from the State Livestock Board.

Local sheriff Cliff Snyder has notified the Forest Service and other state and federal officials that even though the Forest Service has a court order authorizing the confiscation of the Diamond Bar cattle, they “cannot be shipped and sold without being in direct violation of NM Statute.”

His memo also says “I intend to enforce the state livestock laws in my county. I will not allow anyone, in violation of state law, to ship Diamond Bar Cattle out of my county.”

Last hope for ranchers?

Kit and Sherry Laney are one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ranching families who are being squeezed off their land throughout the West. This case has the potential to erect a barrier to further expansion of federal land takeovers in the West or to erase the last hope of retaining ranching as a part of Western culture in the United States.

Both ranchers and federal officials are watching with great anxiety as the conflict moves toward resolution.

Laney’s ancestors began the “Laney Cattle Company” there in 1883 when the area was still a territory. In those days, “prior appropriation” of water determined grazing rights to the land. That meant the first person to make beneficial use of water obtained the “rights” to the water and to the forage within an area necessary to utilize the available water.

Laney’s ancestors acquired the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land now claimed by the federal government.

In 1899, the federal government withdrew from the public domain the land that later became the Gila National Forest, which included much of the land on which Laney’s ancestors had valid claim to water and grazing rights.

Several court cases have determined that land to which others have claims or rights attached cannot be considered “public land.”

Specifically, “It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached does not fall within the designation of public land,” according to Bardon vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Co.

Consequently, Laney reasons, since his ancestors had acquired legal rights to the water and adjacent grazing land before the federal withdrawal, his land could not be considered a part of the public domain.

Forest Service stepped in

When the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905, one of its first concerns was to find a way to settle disputes among ranchers whose water rights resulted in conflicts over grazing areas. The Forest Service stepped into these territorial conflicts and proposed a way to resolve the disputes.

The rancher parties to the dispute voluntarily agreed to allow the Forest Service to measure the available water to which each participant had legal rights and designate the appropriate forage land required to make beneficial use of the available water. The designated area was called an “allotment.”

The ranchers paid the Forest Service a fee for their adjudication service, a portion of which went into a fund from which the ranchers could make improvements to the range and water access. The Forest Service issued a permit, which designated the forage area and the number of cow/calf units, or AUMs, that could graze the allotment.

Laney’s ancestors participated in this type of Forest Service adjudication process in 1907, three years before New Mexico became a state. The system worked well until 1934, when Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act. This law changed the status of the grazing permit from a voluntary process agreed to by the ranchers, into a “license” required by the federal government.

Few ranchers realized this law eventually would strip them of their rights and the land they had worked for generations.

Problems from outset

Laney’s problems began shortly after he acquired the Diamond Bar Ranch, adjacent to the original Laney ranch, in 1985.

The bank from which he bought the ranch had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Forest Service which passed to Laney, the new owner. The agreement required the owner to make certain improvements to watering systems within the Wilderness Areas on the ranch.

The original agreement allowed access to the work areas by mechanical equipment, but environmental organizations pressured the Forest Service to forbid mechanized access, and the agreement was modified. Laney agreed to use mules and non-mechanical means to live up to his end of the agreement.

When he acquired the Diamond Bar, the allotment provided for 1,188 head of cattle. By 1995, the Forest Service reduced the allotment to 300 head. When the permits came due for renewal on the original Laney ranch and the Diamond Bar, in 1995 and 1996, Laney decided he would not sign the permits, since he believed the land was his, not subject to permits issued for grazing on federal land.

Kit and Sherry have spent hours in courthouses in Catron, Grand and Sierra counties, searching titles and documents all the way back to the original claims of water and grazing rights in the 1800s.

They have developed a clear chain of title showing continuous private ownership of the water rights and the attendant grazing rights on the land that is now claimed by the government.

They believe the government’s original withdrawal of the land in 1899 could not include their land, since private property rights had attached to the land.

Neither the Forest Service nor the federal court are impressed with Laney’s reasoning, and the Forest Service is moving to rid the ranch of cattle. And without a means of utilizing the water and land for any productive purpose, the Laneys too will have to leave – unless they can get someone to pay attention to their rights.

Ridding the West of ranchers

For nearly 100 years, federal agencies and ranchers worked together to improve the range and to develop a growing economic foundation for Western states.

Things began to change with the rise of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, there was a concerted, coordinated effort to rid the West of ranchers. In 1992, with the publication of the Wildlands Project, the reasons for squeezing out the ranchers, and other resource providers, began to come into focus.

The Wildlands Project envisions at least half of the land area of North America, restored to “core wilderness areas,” off-limits to humans.

Wilderness areas are to be connected by corridors of wilderness, so wildlife will have migration routes unhampered by people. The Diamond Bar ranch lies directly in the path of a key wilderness corridor.

Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 resulted in the placement of environmental organization executives in key positions throughout the government.

Bruce Babbitt, formerly head of the League of Conservation Voters, became secretary of the Department of Interior, and George Frampton, formerly head of the Wilderness Society, became chief of the U.S. Forest Service. These, and other environmentalists in government, came from the very organizations that promoted the Wildlands Project.

Environmental organizations pressured federal agencies with lawsuits and good-ol’-boy influence to impose the goals of the Wildlands Project through various government initiatives.

Kit and Sherry Laney are among hundreds whose lives and livelihoods have been forever uprooted by the government’s willingness to advance the goals of the Wildlands Project.

The Laneys say they have a ray of hope, however. On Jan. 29, 2002, Judge Loren Smith ruled in a similar case that Wayne Hage “submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had title to the fee lands” which the federal government had claimed to be federal land.

Wayne Hage lost his cattle, but now the court has ruled that a “takings” has occurred, for which the government must pay “just compensation.”

The Hage decision has sent ranchers across the West rushing to courthouses, searching for and documenting the “chain of title,” to the land, grazing and water rights.

Kit Laney has completed his search, and recorded the “exhaustive chain of title” in each of the county courthouses where his land lies. He may not be able to stop the removal of his cattle, even with the help of the local sheriff. But Laney has served notice that he does not intend to roll over and let the government simply take what his family has worked for generations to build.

He says he will fight as long as he has breath. The Forest Service, and the other federal agencies now know they can no longer pick off a single rancher, and move on to the next. The Hage decision, and the determination of Kit Laney has inspired thousands of ranchers to resist the government’s squeezing and to push back.

These ranchers are from the same stock of ranchers who pushed the United States all the way to the Pacific ocean; once riled, they may push the Forest Service all the way back to Washington.

I actually do still have some memory of the laws the Congress passed when the lands were purchased. A lot of western range lands that are now federally owned were granted to people and railroads after the Civil War in some Homestead Acts.

In the mid-1930's Congress passed laws to buy back millions of acres that had been hit hard by the dust bowl and those laws required the BLM and Forest Service to manage the lands for multiple uses. Grazing, recreation, wildlife, oil an gas development, etc. Those things are listed in the statutes Congress passed but I can't remember them all.....Grazing has been a dominate use of many of these lands and that has created conflicts with the other uses and laws like the endangered species act and NEPA. There has always been tension about western land management because of the laws requirements for multi-use management.

I had to edit a law review article about all this stuff once upon a time..........

Ladd Said:
I actually do still have some memory of the laws the Congress passed when the lands were purchased. A lot of western range lands that are now federally owned were granted to people and railroads after the Civil War in some Homestead Acts.

In the mid-1930's Congress passed laws to buy back millions of acres that had been hit hard by the dust bowl and those laws required the BLM and Forest Service to manage the lands for multiple uses. Grazing, recreation, wildlife, oil an gas development, etc. Those things are listed in the statutes Congress passed but I can't remember them all.....Grazing has been a dominate use of many of these lands and that has created conflicts with the other uses and laws like the endangered species act and NEPA. There has always been tension about western land management because of the laws requirements for multi-use management.

I had to edit a law review article about all this stuff once upon a time..........

And there in lies the crux of these issues. The govt arbitrarily changes these laws that have stood for generations and uses that to force these ranchers out of business and off the land after the generations before had followed the laws and in some cases actually purchased the "rights" that are being taken away now .

That was what the courts ruled in the Hage case.

When the agency such as the BLM begins to use the fees the rancher pays to remove the "multiple use" agreement and force these cattle off the range the original agreement called for, often times as a result of a lawsuit an organization like The National Wildlife Federation or other nonprofit files that receives tax payer dollars for these lawsuits, how are ranchers suppose to "trust" these Federal agencies for anything?

BLM, Forrest Service, USF&WS they are all one in the same when it comes down to what they are being forced to do thru the courts as a result of the envirometalist movement that uses the Federal laws to file lawsuit after lawsuit paid for by the peoples tax dollars thru the Equal Justice Act.
And these are the very same enviromentalist non profit orgs that are and will be behind the 5% oil and gax tax measure. And yet when some of us oppose their being welcomed into our state to change our states constitution, others who perhaps do not know as much about their backgrounds are condemned as "greedy" sobs.

Same with the perpetual easement with these Federal orgs. They have time and again broken this "multiple use" law ladd refers to and yet when those of us that make our living in the area these broken promises effect are leery and opposed to signing agreements in prepituity with these agencies we are once again branded "greedy" by people who do not have the knowledge and understanding of these broken agreements, or choose to overlook them.

So when these discussions about these things are being held, remember the hundreds of Federal agents armed with machine guns and armoured personal carriers and snipers from the govt that surrounded one lone rancher and cordoned off "free speech areas" all to do the dirty hidden bidding of a US Senator and his son doing business with Chinese developers on these Federal lands.

cynical Said:
So what would prevent the federal government from doing the end around on land granted to people in the Homestead Act?

Actions such as Mr. Bundy and Mr Hage and others have taken.

It is why the Hage cases is of such significance.

Unfortunately even though Mr. Hage's case was upheld in the first courts, it is likely the Feds are taking it to the 9th District Court of Appeals in which there is a history of Judges ruling for these enviromental and govt agencies overturning the lower courts rulings.

at this point the only answer there seems to be is the one tag line you have.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson